论文标题

E. Snider等人对自然的扩展评论586,373(2020)

Extended Comment on Nature 586, 373 (2020) by E. Snider et al

论文作者

van der Marel, Dirk, Hirsch, Jorge E

论文摘要

最近,在高压下宣布了碳素硫氢化硫化物(CSH)的发现,发现了室温超导性。超导性的证据是基于电阻和磁化率测量的。在显示易感性的数字中,有人从数据中减去了“背景信号,该背景信号是根据108〜GPA的非驾驶CSH样品确定的”。从彻底的数据分析中,我们表明数据与使用背景校正从“测量电压”获得的易感性数据不相容。另一方面,数据{\ IT}与反向过程兼容,即通过添加包含噪声的“背景信号”在报告为背景校正的易感性的情况下获得“测量电压”。在报告的所有六个压力中,我们的分析得出的结论是:(i)报告的背景校正的易感性数据是病理学的,(ii)未通过本文所述的方法或作者随后提供的任何一种替代3种方法获得的方法获得,并且(iii)“测量电压”不是原始的数据。

Recently the discovery of room-temperature superconductivity was announced for a carbonaceous sulfur hydride (CSH) under high pressure. The evidence for superconductivity was based on resistance and magnetic susceptibility measurements. In the figures showing the susceptibility it was stated that "the background signal, determined from a non-superconducting CSH sample at 108~GPa, has been subtracted from the data". From a thorough data analysis we show that the data are incompatible with the notion that the susceptibility data are obtained from the "measured voltage" using a background correction. On the other hand the data {\it are} compatible with the reverse procedure, namely the "measured voltage" is obtained by adding a "background signal" containing noise to what was reported as the background-corrected susceptibility. For all 6 of the reported pressures our analysis leads to the conclusion that: (i) the reported background-corrected susceptibility data are pathological, (ii) they were not obtained by the method described in this paper nor by any one of the alternative 3 methods that were subsequently provided by the authors and (iii) the "measured voltage" data are not raw data.

扫码加入交流群

加入微信交流群

微信交流群二维码

扫码加入学术交流群,获取更多资源